Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Intoxication relevant in arson

R. v. Tatton, 2014 ONCA 273:

[42] If
a fire results after a person does something while intoxicated, it would not
necessarily follow that the person intended to set fire to their home, or
foresaw that a fire would result. In my view, the defence of accident should
not be constrained, or effectively foreclosed, by a rule that prevents the
trier of fact from considering evidence of consumption of alcohol. As a
practical matter, it would be unreasonable and unnecessarily complicated to ask
a jury to compartmentalize their thinking by excluding from their consideration
the effects of alcohol and answer a hypothetical question as to what the
accused’s intent or mental state would have been but for the consumption of
alcohol.

[43] In
some cases, excessive consumption of alcohol may support a finding of
recklessness. As Dickson J. observed in Leary, at p. 46, “[i]n the
circumstances of a particular case, the ingestion of alcohol may be
sufficiently connected to the consequences as to constitute recklessness in a
legal sense with respect to the occurrence of the prohibited act.” Surely
voluntary intoxication would be relevant to those circumstances.